Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Another idea would be to invent a new external flag bit "INV_WRITE_ONLY",
>> so that people who wanted true write-only could get it, without breaking
>> backwards-compatible behavior. But I'm inclined to wait for some field
>> demand to show up before adding even that little bit of complication.
> Demand that may never show up, and the current behavior on HEAD does
> not receive any complains either. I am keeping the patch simple for
> now. That's less aspirin needed for everybody.
Looks good to me, pushed.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
